State v. Pearce
This text of 14 Ind. 426 (State v. Pearce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This is an appeal upon a point reserved by the state.
The defendant was tried upon an indictment for larceny. On the return of the verdict against the defendant, it was discovered that the entry of the return of the indictment by the grand jury, at a previous term of the Court, had been omitted; and thereupon the prosecuting attorney moved that the entry be then made nunc pro tunc. The defendant admitted the fact that ‘the indictment had been thus regularly returned, but objected to the nunc pro tunc entry, and moved on his part for a new trial, on account of the alleged defect in the record.
The Court should have sustained the motion for the nmc pro turne entry. Of its own motion, it should have ordered it on the facts. This Court, of its own motion, [427]*427would order a certiorari to bring up such an entry to affirm a judgment. But there was no final judgment in the case when the appeal was taken, and it must be dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
14 Ind. 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pearce-ind-1860.